Is there an association between assisted reproductive technologies and time and complications of the third stage of labor?
- 244 Downloads
- 2 Citations
Abstract
Purpose
To determine if vaginal deliveries exposed to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are associated with an increased time between delivery of the neonate and placenta and select complications.
Methods
A retrospective cohort of patients enrolled in an infertility practice who had term, singleton, vaginal deliveries at two academic hospitals from 2008 to 2013 was analyzed. Controls were patients with spontaneous conceptions after infertility consultations. The exposure groups were patients with controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation (COH) with in vivo fertilization, COH with in vitro fertilization and fresh embryo transfer (COH/IVF), and frozen embryo transfer or oocyte donation recipients without COH (non-COH ET). Multiple gestations and stillbirths were excluded. Median time of third stage was compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes of retained placenta, manual placental extraction, and post-partum hemorrhage (PPH) were compared using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact analyses.
Results
A total of 769 patients met criteria and were analyzed. While there were no differences in time of third stage of labor, retained placenta, or PPH, manual extraction was significantly more common among non-COH ET [age-adjusted OR 5.6 (95 % CI 2.2–13.8); p < 0.001].
Conclusions
Patients who conceived after non-COH ET were at increased risk for manual placental extraction. This association was not influenced by age differences between groups. Further research must be done to determine which elements of the ART process are responsible for these differences.
Keywords
Assisted reproductive technology Controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation Third stage of labor Complications Manual extractionNotes
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None.
References
- 1.Steptoe PC, Edwards RG (1976) Reimplantation of a human embryo with subsequent tubal pregnancy. Lancet 1:880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Kulkarni AD, Jamieson DJ, Jones HW Jr et al (2013) Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States. N Engl J Med 369:2218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB et al (2015) Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2012. MMWR Surveill Summ 64(6):3Google Scholar
- 4.Shevell T, Malone FD, Vidaver J et al (2005) Assisted reproductive technology and pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 106:1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Henningsen AK, Pinborg A (2014) Birth and perinatal outcomes and complications for babies conceived following ART. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 19(4):234–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A (2012) Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 18:485e503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS (2004) Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 103:551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Basso O, Wilcox A (2010) Mortality risk among preterm babies: immaturity versus underlying pathology. Epidemiology 21:521CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C et al (2002) Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 346:731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C (2011) Factors affecting obstetric outcome of singletons born after IVF. Hum Reprod 26:2878e86Google Scholar